tellytubby101 (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
tellytubby101) wrote2011-08-11 09:36 pm
tellytubby101) wrote2011-08-11 09:36 pm
Entry tags:
dear writers and artists and anyone who contributes to fandom
What do you want in a review/critique?
I'm asking you guys because I want to know. There seems to be some discrepancy in how people think feedback should be delivered.
When it comes to reviewing, I'm generally enthusiastic, will point out two or three things I liked and will throw in a good keysmash when the situation asks for it. Icons are normally changed to appropriate .gifs of love and joy. I love using a ton of colourful adjectives to descibe how I felt and reacted to the fic/art/fanmix/etc. When I point out possible errors, I do so kindly and normally at the end of a nice review.
But reviewing doesn't seem to generate issues - critiquing does. Critiquing, I feel, is different to reviewing in that - the person recieving it asked for it to be a bit more in-depth. Commonly seen in beta work or authors playing with a new genre/style/fandom.
Personally, I try work by the Critter Method when delivering critiques. To summarise for those too lazy to read the whole thing (though I highly recommend it, since the article includes excellent examples and is more in-depth than I will be):
I'm asking you guys because I want to know. There seems to be some discrepancy in how people think feedback should be delivered.
When it comes to reviewing, I'm generally enthusiastic, will point out two or three things I liked and will throw in a good keysmash when the situation asks for it. Icons are normally changed to appropriate .gifs of love and joy. I love using a ton of colourful adjectives to descibe how I felt and reacted to the fic/art/fanmix/etc. When I point out possible errors, I do so kindly and normally at the end of a nice review.
But reviewing doesn't seem to generate issues - critiquing does. Critiquing, I feel, is different to reviewing in that - the person recieving it asked for it to be a bit more in-depth. Commonly seen in beta work or authors playing with a new genre/style/fandom.
Personally, I try work by the Critter Method when delivering critiques. To summarise for those too lazy to read the whole thing (though I highly recommend it, since the article includes excellent examples and is more in-depth than I will be):
- make it less a generalisation (as in we think) and more personal (your views are your own, no one else's: I think, I feel, etc.)
- make it sound like an opinion rather than a rule
- avoiding definites like "you have to" or "you must" and substituting "I feel as though" or "perhaps you might", etc.
- don't try to persuade, just suggest it to them and let the author/artist/etc. ultimately decide
- avoid ALL CAPS and exclaimations!!1! and text speak
- critique the story, not the person - refrain from insulting them
I also have two other things I try to do not included in the Critter Method:
- no swearing when correcting/offering suggestions because I think it makes things potentionally too personal/offensive
- of course, swearing in the sense of positive enthusiasm (fucking awesome shit, man) is okay
- try to praise the writing every now and then; it doesn't need to be a block of red pen marks
How much I stick to these rules depends on how well I know the person I'm working with. For example, this RL person's trilogy I'm helping critique is also sprinkled with lewd jokes here and there when the writing presents innuendo fuel. (Don't worry, the author loves them. ;D)
Anyway, what about you - what kind of things do you like seeing in feedback? Things like certain sections being quoted back at you, or perhaps a comment on characterisation/world-building/etc.? Artists, do you mind getting comments regarding proportion or colour schemes? Finally, what do you HATE in feedback?
COME AT ME, BRO; I WANT DETAILS. :DDD